Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
This comment was removed by the user.
Mike.Your reply is puzzles me. There are less non-progessives/liberals than those who are. Deal breakers in the MIDDLE are becoming less and less in the halls of power until it becomes “My way or the Hi way”. Want to keep Health Care seek a common solution. Want to have reproduction freedom, then seek common ground. Want Unions to have power in industry, then seek common ground. I could go on and on, but there will be a generational fight in the Democratic party post-Obama or before this election, win or lose. The Liberal/Progessive wing of the Demcoratic Party needs to be lectured. They need to be lectured about that America isn’t centered around New York and Califorina. That wing should be taught a lesson about fail Education systems in New York, DC, and in the inner city. Especailly the DC education system and its war with Michelle A. Rhee. They need to be lectured about being anti-energy- across-the-board. They need to rethink their global warming..opps I mean Climate Change policies.
Mr. J. Williams
Writein stated " What do you want? Better yet, what would you refer my idea or the Paul Ryan plan? " My answer would be none of the above.
I'm not so sure President Obama is refusing to listen to anyone nor do I think the liberal wing of the Democratic party needs a lecture about accepting some things; whenever that might be.
I do know this; President Clinton is the best surrogate ever.
What do you want? Better yet, what would you refer my idea or the Paul Ryan plan? It is time for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party to start accepting some things. President Obama is increasing getting unpopular, who refuse to listen to moderate Democrats like Ronnie McDonald, Harold Ford, or others.
President Reagan went from 7.6 unemployment after his inaugural to 9.7-9.8% unemployment and started declining in the summer of 1983 and then the trends started going in his direction with massive defense spending(public jobs) add in the ""Its morning in America again" and you had the makings of a second term... Back then, the norm was 4.0% and economists are saying that we won't see that again anytime soon, 6.0% will be the new norm in 2016. ... Records are always meant to be broken; I believe the president will get a second term if unemployment comes down to 7.8% by Labor Day, and IF the trend is in a downward projection.
Mitt Romney presided over a" Private Equity" firm whose primary objective was to make money for its shareholders.... A" venture capital firm is a group of investors who take a chance on small businesses and entrepreneurs for a long term gain. ..I'll let you read about the difference.
Mitt Romney did run a state and I'm glad he gave us a template for our current health care law.
He did successfully turn around the Winter Olympics, especially after he went to Washington to get as much money as he could.
I know helping poor people (community organizer) after he graduated from Columbia University in 1988 is pretty despicable in your books. He could have been working at a corporation instead of setting up a job training program, and a college preparatory tutoring program. Unfortunately he didn't have a one million dollar trust fund given to him by his dad.
BTW President Obama has 3 1/2 years in office which is more presidential experience than Romney has...Those 2008 talking points of yours need to be revised to 2012.
No doubt, that the 69,000 added jobs was a terrible sign and the world recession from Asia t o Europe and even Australian are having financial woes, is bad news for the president and leaves a lot of room for Romney to win in November....I'm anxiously waiting for the debates.
Since WWII no President has been re-elected with an unemployment rate over 7.4%.
And the current rate of 8.2% will not be below that in November. George Bush's fault, not this far out. Congress's fault, maybe since they can not even pass a budget..
Hopefully Mitt Romney's experience in running a state and the Olympics and a venture capital group will bring the US economy around. A community organizer is not what the country needs.God help us all.
1. There is a difference between Grover Norquist who made every GOP in congress sign a NO TAX pledge and is holding them to it by threatening to primary them and Paul.Krugman who is not part of the White House nor has anything to do with the budget...besides if you can make noise ,so can he..;-)....Anyway the arbitrary number of 10-15 cut won't do a thing because a budget must be balanced with cuts and revenue...Your proposal is one-sided and does not get the job done...revenues will keep the budget balanced so it won’t be weighed against the most vulnerable.2. We will pay back Japan and China in due time but that is not a primary objective right now...terrible jobs report today (69,000) that should be the priority. 3. I bet it will never get to the CBO...wanna bet?..lol4. Just because you can vote against a congressman doesn't mean he's leaving; same with members of the Fed...We have appointed people in every phase of government...You vote for the president ,he in turn appoints those who serve at his pleasure, after they are confirmed.
UN & NATO are organizations committed to foreign policy..WTO is a trading policies big difference.
I know the Dept. of defense has a list but those countries don't have any wealth and they certainly won't pay an extra 2%.
Anyway your proposal would make the GOP happy but the rest won't see the light of day...... IMO
1) Some entitlements and defense project must and should cut. Glover Norquist is a problem, but so is Krugman. 10-15% cut shut everyone up.
2) Mike, we borrowed money from the Japanese so what is the problem? Japan is second behind China. It must be paid back.
3) I bet the CBO would like it
4) Same as #3
5) I’ll skip this.
6) Isolationism isn’t the goal. I want America’s membership in the United Nations, NATO, but WTO and these trade agreements have to go.
7) The State Department already has a list of unfavorable nation status. 2% would help us increase our defense and wealth.
8) At least I can name my congressman and vote against him in a election, but some CEO Wall Street big shot. I can’t get rid of him. That’s scary.
writein,AKA Mr. Williams
It's the third day and as promised I will discuss the Williams Plan that you have posted several,several times....lol
We will start with your statement "It is time for Americans to start having imaginations for once instead of going off into ideological and “cultural” ghettoes."...Tha needs a lot of explaining but moving on.
1. Again, the budget is left to the 535 members of Congress and the administration. Arbitrary cuts across the board are worthless because we know that entitlements and defense spending are the drivers of our debt.If the GOP will accept a 4:1 ration of spending cuts to revenues,it will go a long way to a bipartisan deal like Simpson-Bowles...but Grover Norquist won't let them.
2. The country would riot if we even considered paying off another country's debt while our economy is still reeling from 2008... It would get zero votes in both houses of Congress...If you didn't know if you were going to be able to meet your mortgage this month, would you go pay your neighbors?3. Tax reform is a big issue and if the Congress considers the Fisher Plan, let them run it through CBO.4. That would be part of the tax reform item#35. ? Glass-Steagall was repealed because the financial sector thought it was an impediment to growth and that's what they think Dodd-Frank is....Same problem ..Different name.6. We're not going to become an isolationist country so that idea goes into the wastebasket.7. What will your arbitrary number of 2% do? Who are the and unfavored nations?8. Another one of those " and we're not gonna to get rid of the Fed." ..We already audit the Fed but I assume you want a more detailed one...Can we really trust a congressperson not to have loose lips and keep the deals we make with other nations within the hands of a select few? The only way the Fed will work is if other nations trusts us to keep their financial secrets..Why would other nations open their books to us for all to see?
In summary, we need to bring imagination closer to pragmatic..... It would be a major undertaking to even consider ending the Fed and all the trade agreements that were made in good faith... Why would any country want to enter in a trade agreement with us if we want to take our football and go home when someone thinks it's beneficial to us.?What if all the major car dealers said "we aren't going to deal with the general pubic ,anymore?" It's probably reasonable to renegotiate some outdated or unfair provisions in those trade agreements.
I would rather take an issue that's been presented by Congress and argue the points of the legislation that are actually up for debate using credible sources to back my claim.
There was a lull in the bomb throwing but unfortunately it was not in Syrian... President Obama and Michelle hosted former President George W. Bush,Laura Bush and the rest of the Bush family to unveil portraits of President Bush and Laura that will forever hang in the White House for all to see. President Obama Jokingly thanked the former president for leaving a great sport package and he said that he uses it..... :-0 .. Michelle thanked Laura Bush for setting the standard for first ladies.... President Bush introduced Laura as the best first lady ever and then immediately said " sorry mom."
The Corzine case has been litigated it has nothing to do with the subject matter of this blog unless you have found that it's what JP Morgan did. JP Morgan does retail and investment bank and they were trying to hedge the risk of ordinary loans going south.
This better explains what JP Morgan Chase did:
"The company’s chief investment office originally made a series of trades intended to protect the firm from a possible global slowdown. JPMorgan owns billions of dollars in corporate bonds, so if a slowdown were to occur and corporations couldn’t pay back their debt, those bonds would have lost value.
To mitigate that possibility, JPMorgan bought insurance — credit-default swaps — that would go up in value if the bonds fell in value.But sometime last year, with the economy doing better than expected, the bank decided it had bought too much insurance. Rather than simply selling the insurance, the bank set up a second “hedge” to bet that the economy would continue to improve — and this time, traders overshot, by a lot.
Jamie Dimon, the bank’s chief executive, said of the trade on “Meet the Press”: “We know we were sloppy. We know we were stupid.” Senior executives at the bank say privately that the trade should have never been made; they even concede that it looks like a proprietary trade — which the Volcker Rule would explicitly prohibit — rather than a “hedge.”
MikeThanks for your response. I believe you will find that M F Global violated regulations when it used client funds to cover debt (thus the missing funds) and the denial by John Corzine about authorizing the violation.
No apologies necessary but I have found that sometimes people unintentionally steer the direction of the blog to what they want to discuss. Tomorrow they can have at it but I appreciate the comments of Dale, arlewill, and gansoblanco on the topic.
I'm still looking for that specific regulation that's crippling our financial sector.
I'm still for splitting commercial banking from the higher risk investment firms. As derivative expert and law professor Frank Partnoy said" splitting commercial banking from trading dramatically simplifies risk," since the former is more about knowing your customers and making decent lending bets rather than trying to keep track of $360 billion investment portfolio that includes thousands of complicated hedges....I thought that was bipartisan but evidently not...I never thought I would see the day where consumer protection would be considered a bad thing.
No Writein, your redundant posts had nothing to do with the subject I posted. I've seen your proposals and I imagine I will see them several more times...:-)
If you combine arlewill and gangsoblanco’s posts and the contents of this blog; you will get an idea of the subject matter.
There is a time and a place.
Thanks gansoblanco, I was going to take down the blog because of lack of clarity. It went from fantasy budget proposals, anti- government, to nationalizing the banks.
There's definitely a conflict of interest in having the people (Mr. Dimon)you're supposed to regulate on the board. It should be an arms link transaction.
That's all I want, a simple 1 to 3 page contract for Aunt Martha's savings account which by law has to be separated from the high risk investment portfolio of any bank. The high risk investment bank should be able to rise and fail on their own ;without any help from the taxpayers',if they fail.
Were all the republicans out of the country in 2008? They don't think we should do anything about "Too Big to Fail." The market will self -regulate;that's a lot like Romney's self-deportation immigration plan. Do nothing.
Corzine is a crook and should be in jail along with other Wall Street financiers who were responsible for the 2008 collapse. Jamie Dimon is also a democrat and a friend of the president and but that's got nothing to do with what I wrote about because evidently you were OK with what Corzine did without regulations in place.
Can you name TWO regulations that are crippling the banking industry? The water downed Dodd-Frank is not making a dent.A few years ago I wrote about the railroading of Brooksley Born (1998) when she tried to rein in the over-the-counter deveritives that had actually crippled Colgate-Palmolive. Democrats, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers were part of the gang along with Republicans Alan Greenspan and Phil Gramm.
Allow me to reinstate, Wall Street has not been crippled as their lobbyist would like you to believe. Pick up a newspaper and you will see that they're doing quite well.
You have to read carefully, no one is saying JP Morgan Chase is not stable enough to absorb a $3 billion dollar loss or that they took taxpayer money. The message that we don't have instruments in place to prevent another financial collapse. A lesser bank would not have been able to absorb the $3 billion loss and then we would have another example of privatizing the gains and socializing the losses.
There's no word or even the thought of nationalizing the banks or over regulating them. I think over regulating is subjective and we will never find out the truth unless specific regulations are identified. Right now we have the Volcker rule but there's a loophole in and to allow the continuance of portfolio hedging (JP Morgan) and there's enough wiggle room to drive an 18 wheeler through the definition of "high risk activities."
Them poor ol Bankers. They get their money from the Fed at next to 0% and lend at 5% + and they still lack the leverage to make any money. Bless their hearts.
Good ol Jamie Dimon is piece of work all right. Apologize and force the woman out is pure class. Most folks can relate to making a mistake, losing your job, and then having to get by on a $28 million package.
With Jamie Dimond on the New York Fed board I can sleep better knowing the henhouse is being closely watched.
Banks should be banks and investment houses should be investment houses. Allowing the two to mix will only allow the paper traders to bring this country down.
MikeHistorically, regulation of industry by government has been the tool used to first cripple an industry and then nationalize it in the name of protecting the people.All this fuss about Jamie Dimon is silly to me. He announced his mistake to the public, the Board met and continue to support Dimon. J P Morgan still made money for the shareholders and it did not cost taxpayers or customers a dime.On the other hand, M F Global, led by our President's friend, Corzine, went bankrupt and took hundreds of millions of customer's dollars with it. Corzine pleads ignorance and is ignored by the Attorney General. Corzine is a major bundler of contributions for the Presidential Campaign.
Bankia of Spain is an example of a heavily regulated bank that has been nationalized and now needs 19 billion dollars that Spain does not have and can't borrow. Is this where we want to go?
Waywardwind and Mike.
Maybe both of you taken my comment out of context and that yes I didn’t expand on that point as well. The real point of my comment was a Transaction tax on Wall Street as a cure. Such a tax of 3% would prevent or discourages such (B)acon (S)andwichs like derivatives (yes those formulas are real), casino gambling with people’s hard earned money at home. An international transaction tax of 5% would place pressures on those multinationals organizations, firms, and banks that help destroy American jobs. There is a little town north of Victoria called Yoakum which a leather company laid off people and move some of its operations to Asia.
On to the somewhat off topic…..
(2) No. We borrowed money from Japan, second to China. Since Japan’s energy depends heavily on nuclear power, we should help our ally with oil. Our oil should equal debt freedom; to me it is a double edge sword. Let’s go a bit further here. Since our Space Policy is in the dumps thanks to every President since Nixon. We should follow the lead of what Hollywood Director James Cameron’s company to do space mining for energy. If we mine the moon for Hydrogen-4, 7 tons of it would power the entire United States for 18 months. Imagine in what we can do with that selling that product to Japan (to pay off the debt); to Europe (to depowered Putin’s Russia) and the blow chunk out of Middle Eastern war production both Israeli and Arab.
3) I am a believer in the Tax reform policy of Former Democratic Presidential Candidate Paul C. Fisher (1960). The Fisher Tax plan (or my plan which is an updated streamlined version) is ideological neutral. Which means it isn’t like Mike’s liberal, Wilsonian, and Progressive or yours (Waywardwind) Objectivism, Ron Paulian, conservatism, libertarianism. I refer to cut out what is bad about the liberal and the conservative; and left in the good parts and mix them. Why limited to the Rich, because it is the rich who have more resources than the poor. Second it wouldn’t matter because the 2-3% tax on all goods would counter balance the rich vs. poor argument.
It is time for Americans to start having imaginations for once instead of going off into ideological and “cultural” ghettoes.
Mike...You're right. I'm sorry. I saw the use US oil reserve to pay Japan debt and went somewhat ballistic. My apologies -- sincerely.
Your comments about derivatives remind me of what my financial advisor told me about them. Derivatives are like rattlesnakes -- mess with them and they'll bite you first chance they get and you're going to die. Anyone who dabbles with them had better be prepared to lose. By the way, that's a REAL formula you posted? It looks like it could take a rocket to the moon.
Please guys let the first day of this blog be about the content....I meant to tell Writein earlier but I was waiting to see if the subject matter would stray.
The content of the blog is about regulating Wall Street or not.
3rd day is hog law
Writein..."2) The untapped oil in Montana and the Dakotas is so plentiful that the resources could be used to pay earthquake/nuclear struck Japan back it debt."
Uhhh, J, are you seriously suggesting that the United States tap OUR oil reserves to pay JAPANS debt? Please tell me that I misunderstood your comment. Japan is a friend and an ally, but we have already helped them as much as we can or should. We're broke, J. We can't pay our OWN debts much less those of JAPAN.
"3) The Paul C Fisher Tax Plan with those making over $300,000 would pay a flat income tax, while every American pays a valued sales tax."
Valued sales tax. Are you referring to a Value Added Tax (VAT)? I really don't think you would want any part of a VAT. When the government taxes each item at each step of its' production, the costs to the consumer rise dramatically. No, J. A VAT is a bad idea. As far as the flat tax is concerned, I LOVE it, but why limit it to the very rich? I'd love to pay a flat tax -- no deductiions, no exceptions and no exemptions. Everybody pays the SAME percentage of their income.
I'd like to see us out of NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO and the UN. I don't think it'll happen, but I like the idea very much.
The Williams Plan.1) Cut 10-15% of all budget items for this year and cut another 10-25% for 2012 and 2013 with a plan to pay off the national debt.
2) The untapped oil in Montana and the Dakotas is so plentiful that the resources could be used to pay earthquake/nuclear struck Japan back it debt.
3) The Paul C Fisher Tax Plan with those making over $300,000 would pay a flat income tax, while every American pays a valued sales tax. Food and Clothes 2% with Luxury items being taxed at 23-25%.
4) A transaction tax of 3% on Wall Street. International transactions will be 5%.
5) Repeal Dodd-Frank and Gramm-Leach; and Reinstate Glass-Steagall act of 1933.
6) De-globalize the economy by ending NAFTA, CAFTA, and remove membership from the WTO.
7) Trade with all NATIONS, but place a 2% tariff on unfavorable nations.
8) Audit the Federal Reserve or destroy it and created a new one with less printing powers.
Those are your personal opinions but I believe a lot of us can sleep comfortably knowing that the FDIC insures our savings up to $250,000 and in some cases prevents bank overruns . You can call that" mama" all you want but many of us do not have the resources to prevent our savings from being lost because of something that we didn't anything to do with.
The government and businesses can provide infrastructure repair as they have done in the past, so I strongly disagree with your assumptions. The private and public sector work side by side the everyday; look it up.
BTW the subject is regulating the banking industry... Are you saying we should have an unfettered free market? laissez-faire?
When government becomes an individual's momma, the individual looses his independence and self-determination.
When government begins to provide welfare and lends a helping hand to business: the same thing happens.
When government and business become partners: nothing good can happen.